The Watering Hole

... another genius move brought to you by the intellectual giants running our country.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5935532.html

Health and Human Services officials are considering a draft regulation that would classify most birth control pills, the Plan B emergency contraceptive and intrauterine devices as forms of abortion because they prevent the development of fertilized eggs into fetuses.

The rule, which does not require congressional approval, would allow health care workers who object to abortion on moral or religious grounds to refuse to counsel women on their birth control options or supply contraceptives. It would forbid more than half a million health agencies nationwide that receive federal funds from requiring employees to provide such services. Pharmacists could use the rule as a justification for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions, and insurance companies could cite it as a basis for declining to cover the costs.

Maybe he received a large kick-back from the Catholic church...

This is just another example of screwed up religion and religious beliefs. Yeah, the credit goes to the wacko Bush boy, but just as much credit goes straight to religion.

Bad thing is, is that McCain and Obama are just as religious and will certainly have crazy thoughts and shit.

Religion has to depart from politics someday for anything to get better. Dems and repubs aren't the problem, religion is.

I don't think it's a religious issue.  I find it incredibly hard to believe that no one in America who has used the pill or an IUD is a Christian.  

As far as your statement re McCain and Obama, you are incorrect.  Obama said clearly--to an audience of church-goers, no less, last night, that he is pro-choice.  McCain said that he is pro-life.  If you think Obama is going to follow in Bush's footsteps on this, you are not thinking clearly.

I see a religious bunch of crap in the backfield. Just my opinion.

I also think Obama better get in gear. McCain stomped his ass with direct answers while Obama danced around questions like it was the first he'd ever heard them. I think Obama is in for a pretty good fight from McCain. It was McCains strength, as far as the setting goes, I guess.

Two clearly different candidates on alot of issues. I think McCain did a really good job. Obama seemed kinda not ready....to much bullshit in his answers, imo.

Obama might have done better if he had heard the answers ahead of time, too.  McCain clearly heard the questions, or had them relayed to him.  A monumentally pussy move, if you ask me.

But ultimately, I think forums like those are irrelevant.  Remember how Kerry was universally regarded to have stomped all over Bush in the debates? How far did that get him?

The next steps:   ;)

"BushCo decides oral sex is abortion!"

"BushCo decides masturbation is abortion!"

Come on Charger. Got any evidence of that bullshit?

I watched enough to be able to discern it for myself.  Along with seeing all the bumbling McCain typically does in interviews, I think it was pretty obvious.  Add to that the fact that McCain was "traveling to the event" during part of Obama's Q&A (you REALLY think no one would have called him on a cell to tell him what the questions were?) and then, in an unobservable "cone of silence" for the second half--yeah, I buy that.

Anyway, if you make your decisions based on how candidates answer a bunch of churchgoer's questions, you're really not part of any solution, are you?  You're just furthering what YOU state repeatedly is the problem.  As a non-believer, I'd be thrilled if my candidate showed up to a church Q&A and had NO answers.  That would mean they weren't kow-towing to the god freaks who seem to run everything.  However, as a realist, I understand the power of the evangelical vote, and that Obama needs to get some small percentage of those freaks on his side to win.  

I'm still interested in trying to figure out what kind of forum, answer, or position statement Obama could possibly come up with that you would find satisfactory, since it certainly seems like he's doing it wrong by you no matter how or what he answers.

cone of silence - lol

I have watched some of this crap on youtube.

Incredible - wisest person McCain knows is Petraeus - well step aside then McCain and let the wise Generals run the country.

McCain looked like a rabbit in the headlights in the middle of an oral  test trying to  remember the right answer - badly fucked up on what represents a rich person - not 5 million dummy we told you to say 500,000.

Obama looked like he was under interrogation and guilty of hopeless triangulation.

I think both came out badly

McCain a phoney cheat.
Obama a phoney who should have just told them that he believed that the issue of abortion is one that rightfully belongs to the judgement of  the individual  woman and her god or lack of one and they should keep their big evangelical noses out of it as it is not wanted.

The whole episode was one huge phoney event designed to promote the Pastor and the church into political life.

hey and the Pastor's wife is sitting next to McCain's wife - interesting that McCain said that his biggest moral failure was the collapse of his first marriage - maybe he means that he wouldn't be married to this second  wife  - the one he called a cunt :D

charger — Aug 19, 2008I watched enough to be able to discern it for myself.  Along with seeing all the bumbling McCain typically does in interviews, I think it was pretty obvious.  Add to that the fact that McCain was "traveling to the event" during part of Obama's Q&A (you REALLY think no one would have called him on a cell to tell him what the questions were?) and then, in an unobservable "cone of silence" for the second half--yeah, I buy that.

Anyway, if you make your decisions based on how candidates answer a bunch of churchgoer's questions, you're really not part of any solution, are you?  You're just furthering what YOU state repeatedly is the problem.  As a non-believer, I'd be thrilled if my candidate showed up to a church Q&A and had NO answers.  That would mean they weren't kow-towing to the god freaks who seem to run everything.  However, as a realist, I understand the power of the evangelical vote, and that Obama needs to get some small percentage of those freaks on his side to win.  

I'm still interested in trying to figure out what kind of forum, answer, or position statement Obama could possibly come up with that you would find satisfactory, since it certainly seems like he's doing it wrong by you no matter how or what he answers.

Well then to be fair, lets just disreguard your accusation. Your just blinded by Obama. Do you disagree with me when I say that Obama lost or didn't seem as par as McCain did? You must agree with me some.....your accusing McCain of having the questios up front. So, he gets the questions up front and has to memorize all his answers in 30 minutes or less, right? Or wait....maybe he went to the guys church and him and McCain came up with the questions a year ago. Or, McCain just had people pay the preacher for the questions right?

Look, I just gave my opinion on the Q@A. And I think you agree. You may not like it, but you agree. You know I'm not gonna make a decision based on questions asked by a damn religious "freak", you know me better than that I'm sure. It was simply my opionion, that's all.

Obama said what I like to hear today, in fact. Concerning the Iraq situation. How's that? Do I need to look it up for you or did you see it to? Sounded great to me!!!!

How the fuck do you think McCain won ?
Won what - being a right wing republican and good little god squad soldier ?

They were both shit.

There was nothing to win there but votes and McCain may well have won some votes with the pretend undecided but he had those anyway

McCain looked better than Obama is what I meant or said, whatever. If you could declare a winner, I think it would be McCain. Like I said, it's just my opinion. I thought McCain looked and sounded damn good. Obama also made some mistakes. He obviously has forgotton his own voting record. :'(


http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_extremism_125074.htm

;D ;D

This where your getting you Cone of Silence stuff Charger? ;D ;D

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/08/cracks_in_mccains_cone_of_sile.html

I merely discerned it by watching the answers McCain was giving.  His answers were way too quick, and I believe it was fairly obvious he had a good idea of what questions were coming.  Ever seen Quiz Show?  That's how the answers looked to me.  If Obama had gone second, and sounded that good, and McCain sounded like his usual blustery self, I would say the same thing.  I think the whole thing was BS.  In a real debate, each peson switches off answering first or second... thus, some people look good on some questions.  In this forum, all McCain had to do was answer quickly, and answer in a way that rebutted Obama, and he looked like a frigging genius.  Not that he was.  

But, like fingers said, it was a forum for people who already know they are not voting for Obama, and need to know why, for the most part.

Wait for the real debates.  Things will appear a lot more even, if Obama doesn't trounce McCain, which I would expect, because McCain is crap on anything but defense.

Quoting the New York Post?  If you knew the NY papers, you'd know that is a tabloid.  What's next, quoting the Enquirer or the Weekly World News?

What do you honestly think, Hookie?  you think if he was in the car, on the way to the event, while Obama was getting the questions, that he got none of them?  Seriously.  Has he shown so much integrity in this election so far that you actually believe that?  A guy who runs ads comparing his opponent to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears?  

fingers — Aug 19, 2008How the fuck do you think McCain won ?

Funny.  I hate watching this type of stuff and watched the Olympics instead.  However, I've had a few people say they thought McCain "won" hands down.  Scary, huh?

That's like blindly saying Notre Dame is the best football team because you want them to be.  ;)

You made my point Charger. You don't need 3 minutes to answer one question when there is a one word answer that says the same thing.

It seemed to me that McCain answered the question directly and honestly, then explained some of his answers.

Obama seemed to explain his answer in a huge line of shit....which came accross to me like he danced around answering the questions. You really had to listen to Obama and follow what he was saying to understand his answer. If you were half paying attention, you'd never get the answer or what he was saying. His answers were thought out and detailed, which is good, but for the average voter, they don't always listen to the entire answer....they get bored or uninterested at some points. I really had to pat attention to most of Obama's answers and everything he said closely to not misunderstand his points.

McCain was direct in answering, Obama was indirect. So, McCain just appeared more solid and confident in his answers.

Just my opinion.....not a big deal considering where it took place and the person doing the questioning.

And what difference does it make where you get the info as long as it's factual? If it's not factual, show me!

Umm, that was an opinion piece, not factual,  Read it again, and point out "the facts" to me.  All the guy was say that Obama voted on things in the Illinois state legislature, and then voted on completely different bills in the US Senate, in a different way.

Well, no shit, Sherlock!  

They are not the same bills, they don't have the same items or ramifications attached to them, and there is simply no way to compare a vote in the US Senate to a vote in a state legislature.  They may concern roughly the same issues, but every bill is different and has different riders and conditions.

CraigBert — Aug 20, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1219073140/0#11 date=1219184624]How the fuck do you think McCain won ?

Funny.  I hate watching this type of stuff and watched the Olympics instead.  However, I've had a few people say they thought McCain "won" hands down.  Scary, huh?

That's like blindly saying Notre Dame is the best football team because you want them to be.  ;)



No - it was like watching a DTR and Kev athletic competition in competitive pettiness.

From my perspective they both clearly lost, looked lost and lost respect.

So my question was really to the mindset that see's a winner in such a crock of shit.

e.g. picking a DTR or a Kev out as winner in a crock of shit "athletic" test when they are clearly both losers. ;)

is English your native language?  I debated Kev's constant insistence that distance runners were great athletes and that physical conditioning decided whether or not you were an athlete.  Anything more that you heard was me giving someone crap who deserved it.  

If getting so tired of hearing someone beat something into the ground for years that you decide to give them crap for it, is cause for loss of your respect, then I don't figure you are a great judge of character   ;)   :-*

DreamTheaterRules — Aug 20, 2008is English your native language?  I debated Kev's constant insistence that distance runners were great athletes and that physical conditioning decided whether or not you were an athlete.  Anything more that you heard was me giving someone crap who deserved it.  

If getting so tired of hearing someone beat something into the ground for years that you decide to give them crap for it, is cause for loss of your respect, then I don't figure you are a great judge of character   ;)   :-*

This is very mean.  I think you should apologize.  ;)

LOL,  I wondered why fingers was being so well behaved.  I didn't realize he was still bashing me, just doing it in forums where I wasn't reading it.   ;D ;D

Ooh the irony  ;)

DreamTheaterRules — Aug 20, 2008LOL,  I wondered why fingers was being so well behaved.  I didn't realize he was still bashing me, just doing it in forums where I wasn't reading it.   ;D ;D

That's why there's a Fire Water section... for the yelling.

As DTR  just posted - he doesn't read this section.  :D

The god squad McCain/Obama debate had no winner, because involvement in the debate itself  debased the participants.

The  DTR  vs  Kev debates over athletic prowess could have no winner unless the award was for "most pathetic".

It was very funny to witness the idle boasting and self aggrandisement - but it was also kinda annoying.

It wasn't a bash,  just an observation of fact - something that actually happened at the WH  - that was a good analogy for the McCain/Obama debate.

But it is reasonable to expect presidential candidates to be above a childish DTR and Kev show and it is strange that people would consider someone to have won one.

When it is more like judging who lost least.

I am not sure who lost most in the Kev/DTR debates - both have form as being boastful - but Kev did at least put up evidence.

So I guess it was DTR who lost most.

Yes, but take that argument to its logical conclusion, and you can say the same thing about American politics.  That involvement in it debases the participants.  We're already seeing that happen with Obama.  The reason we don't see it so much with McCain is that he has been in politics for so long, he is already completely debased.  Obama, as the fresh newcomer, has a lot more shit to collect yet.

I think your seeing the first of a unexperienced candidate going up agaist a experienced candidate. The inexperience will follow Obama into the white house if he's elected. So, with the good he possibly can do, we better expect some fuck ups also. The question is, will his fuckups be as bad as Bush's fuck ups. And will the good he seems to want to do be as good as the few good things Bush has done.

The only question with McCain is will his fuckups be worse than Bush's, or just the same.

The problem with McCain is that he has no different solution for the economy.  He think it's going great.  So... another four years of the Bush economy.  We have seen how tax cuts and deficit spending have helped the country.  They've helped it into a massive fucking hole.  We need what we always need after eight years of a Republican president... a Democrat to come along and fix the fucking mess.  

charger — Aug 21, 2008Yes, but take that argument to its logical conclusion, and you can say the same thing about American politics.  That involvement in it debases the participants.  We're already seeing that happen with Obama.  The reason we don't see it so much with McCain is that he has been in politics for so long, he is already completely debased.  Obama, as the fresh newcomer, has a lot more shit to collect yet.

True - that occurred to me, politics debases those who take part.

For a politician to rise above this is rare - he not only has to set the agenda but create a new unsullied paradigm for himself to occupy.

Ghandi and Mandela style.


Hook do you consider that  Bush was experienced in 2000 ?

Bush was more experienced than Obama.

charger — Aug 21, 2008The problem with McCain is that he has no different solution for the economy.  He think it's going great.  So... another four years of the Bush economy.  We have seen how tax cuts and deficit spending have helped the country.  They've helped it into a massive fucking hole.  We need what we always need after eight years of a Republican president... a Democrat to come along and fix the fucking mess.  

You mean like Carter and Ford did??? Clinton did pretty good.

The problem isn't tax cuts themselves. We need tax cuts.

The problem is this country is run like a out of control spending machine.

When we have debt like we do now, we don't stop spending. We don't cut back needless programs. We don't reduce government. We pretty much just keep spending fucking money. We still give other countries billions of dollars every year. It's stupid. We pay plenty of taxes. Plenty. Our government just has a spending money problem and no accountability for what they spend. No one to answer to.

You say Bush shouldn't cut taxes durring a war when we are already in debt. Well, maybe not.

But Obama is going to do the same thing plus start a truck load of new programs on top of that. He's committed to spending shit loads of money on new energy, for example. Well that's fine, and we need to....but we "need to" only after we have the money to spend on it. Right now, he should be focused on getting us out of debt, as should McCain. Neither has fucking mentioned it as far as I know.

That's the problem with these fuckers.

There is a shit load of things we could have done to fight terriorism other than go invade Iraq and send troops to Afganastan right here in our own country. That should have been done first. IMO.

Seaking of stupid debt and out of control spending...I talked to a guy that's a nurse at a federal prison the other day. Do you know that we pay for reconttructive surgery on guys that have been shot by police durring their capture? For example....one gut got shot in the arm, he had use of his arm, about 40 to 50%. We paid to have his arm fixed one year before he was suppose to get out of jail. Right out of tax payers pocket. WTF???

Our government spends tons of money on stupid shit. I don't know what the answer is....but we have major problems in this country and most are from the people in the white house and congress letting it happen.

charger — Aug 21, 2008  We need what we always need after eight years of a Republican president... a Democrat to come along and fix the fucking mess.  

And then we need what we always need after eight years of a Democratic president... a Republican to come along and fix the fucking mess.

I believe this is what both parties want people to think.  As far as I'm concerned, the only messes that get cleaned up are between the good 'ol boys on both sides of the aisle.  The "masses" are just a small convict stuck in a cell with two larger convicts who take turns screwing him.

What Clinton mess did Bush fix - I can't think of a single one  :P

Hookbender — Aug 21, 2008Bush was more experienced than Obama.

who isn't?  

fingers — Aug 21, 2008What Clinton mess did Bush fix - I can't think of a single one  :P

The economy, if you give credit and blame of the state of the economy to the President.

The economy went to shit Clintons last year in office, just as it's done in the last year of Bush's term.

Hookbender — Aug 21, 2008[quote author=fingers link=1219073140/25#33 date=1219348650]What Clinton mess did Bush fix - I can't think of a single one  :P

The economy, if you give credit and blame of the state of the economy to the President.

The economy went to shit Clintons last year in office, just as it's done in the last year of Bush's term.

It was just an economic blip in 2000 hardly comparable to the financial Armageddon that Bush has left his successor and the world.

Clinton left Bush with a budget surplus, a strong dollar and respect for the US.
Bush is  the photographic negative of Clinton.

You bang on about how spending money like there is no tomorrow is  this great flaw that needs to be excised,

Well look no further that Bush for that - he did this spending and paid for it with a financial system on the edge of collapse.

The opinion in the market has been  that Bush is  the Enron president economically - a good place to make money but get out before it goes tits up.

and Bush has gone tits up in the last year.

You see - I don't think Bush either cares or understands any of it - he was only a dumb puppet who can drawl like a homey and  is at his happiest giving the finger in the interview and playing the clown.

It was just a frat boy game for him - being president was and is still obviously just a hoot.

Bush was an ignorant  heavy footed  twat put in charge of a formula one car he doesn't even want to understand -  
The engine is now fucked.

DreamTheaterRules — Aug 21, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1219073140/25#30 date=1219323665]Bush was more experienced than Obama.

who isn't?  

You ?

fingers — Aug 21, 2008What Clinton mess did Bush fix - I can't think of a single one  :P

What messes (that matter) do any of them resolve?  They just pardon the guilty and change the focus to something else...

fingers — Aug 21, 2008[quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1219073140/25#34 date=1219351807][quote author=Hookbender link=1219073140/25#30 date=1219323665]Bush was more experienced than Obama.

who isn't?  

You ?

What has Bush spent money on? Other than the war?

Is the economy's shape Bush's fault? Why?

The two main problems we have here are oil prices and home problems.

First, gas prices. Oil prices being so high is really not all Bush's fault, not really. The war didn't cause gas prices to jump so high as everyone thinks. The fact is, gas prices went up after Katrina hit New Orleans. They never came down after that, they stayed high and still are today. America is cutting back on driving and the use of fuel right now, so the demand for oil has dropped some and so has the price of gas or oil. Oil has gone from 147 a barrell down to 115 a barrell in the last few months. We are still in a war, the difference is, the gas companies aren't selling as much oil so the price is coming down. It's about demand for oil, not so much the war. Oil prices will come back down. It did the last time this happened and it will again. That's one reason I'm not going crazy about trying to sell my Yukon that only gets 19 mpg on the hwy. Gas will come down at some point. We have pretty much one source of fuel now, oil. If America get's serious and we have more sources of fuel for cars etc, then it will create a market or competition agaist oil and oil companies, thus driving oil prices lower in the future because demand will decrease, not because we pull out of Iraq. Though that may help some to, it won't be the main factor, probably.

Homes were over priced, or over valued, because interest rates went down and people could afford homes. So, the demand for homes was high. The people who got shitty arms and now can't afford the home they have because the rate is going up is not Bush's fault. Fact is, the people were ignorant of what they were doing and greedy, bought to much home for their salary. That's the people's fault, for the most part. Now the home demand has decreased and so has the value of homes. Supply and demand again, not Bush. I had a arm myself when I originally purchased my home. I thought I would only be in my current home for around 4 or 5 years so I took the lower arm interest rate. Rates started going up, it was all over the news by the way, so I refinanced. Cost me $500 bucks and about 15 minutes of paperwork. Did it over the phone in fact. It was easy. Got the paperwork mailed to me overnight, filled it out, mailed it back to the same company I had my home financed with. The company even walked me through the paperwork over the phone to make sure it was correctly filled out. So, how is the home problem Bush's fault and not the greedy people's fault that didn't no what they were doing and bought a home they eventually couldn't afford? Easy to blame Bush isn't it?

Now I'm speaking in general about these 2 problems and some or most of this is my opinion, but some is not merely opinion. I think it's pretty hard to argue against these two points I've made. I'm sure you will, but tell me where I'm wrong. I may be looking at this incorrectly. I just find it hard to blame everything on Bush.

The price of a barrel of Oil is affected by world demand not just US demand,
it also rises against a weakening  US dollar.
War, threats of war  create supply uncertainty and increase the price in the markets - the threat of war with Iran created the last spike.

The price of Oil is not the fault of Bush - the US has little control over it as they are an importer.
The only thing Bush could manage  is the level of demand, the strength of the dollar and war.

World demand has weakened and the price has subsided for now.
But high oil prices are here to stay so you will be waiting a long time if you are betting on the low oil prices of a decade ago.

But that isn't the biggest problem.

The biggest problem by far is the credit crunch and that was entirely under the watch of the  Bush administration. The problem for Bush was that he presided over the biggest government credit binge in history and was not in a position to do anything about it, as his government needed continued cheap finance themselves - he  could not turn the credit boom down by raising interest rates and it fed into a credit glut and then the inevitable crunch.

He gambled with the finances to get re-elected in 2004.

That was the point that the dollar tanked in value and oil started soaring.

Hookbender — Aug 21, 2008Bush was more experienced than Obama.

Being Gub'nor of Texas doesn't really give you any experience, especially since it's not even close to being the most powerful position in the Texas state government, and doesn't demand much of the office's occupant.

I don't think Dubya really had any more actual experience than Obama...and definitely he's dwarfed in both the intellectual and oratory departments, not to mention the personal ethics department by Obama, but I'm sure Hook (ever the partisan Obama-hating doofus in this argument) will claim that it's my "Obama blindness" that is causing me to state the reality that he so vehemently denies. It's your anti-Obama bias, not our affection for the man, that is the problem.

"Experience" is a load of garbage in this case. No one has experience until they actually do the job, which is why you pick the smart guy who is a born leader and surrounds himself with smart people that have well-thought-out ideas, not the "experienced" guy who apparently can't tell the difference between Shiite and Sunni, and doesn't even have the support of his staff.

Tripper

It is a fact Fingers, that oil prices went up after Katrina, and they never came down. That part wasn't opinion, it is fact. I don't know how the rest of the world is doing, but America is cutting down on oil usuage and the price is falling. That also is a fact.

Does the President have power to control interest rates? I don't think so. But if he does, please inform me of that.


It's been reported that Obama has choosen Biden as his VP. If that's the case, I'll really consider Obama now. I really like Biden alot.

Tripper

At least McCain doesn't pretent not to "really" know his pastor and his crazy racist thoughts for 20 years. Bush can look into the soul of the russian president and tell he's a really good guy. ;D ;D

I don't hate Obama. If he's really decided on Biden, he'll definetely get a hard look from me. I really like Biden, believe it or not. If he were running for President, he'd get my vote. He actually does have experience and knowledge of how things work in Washington. I feel he could really get things done as President, but I'll take VP, probably. Great move on Obama's part, I think. The best move he's made so far....by far.

Hookbender — Aug 23, 2008It is a fact Fingers, that oil prices went up after Katrina, and they never came down. That part wasn't opinion, it is fact.

Nope it is just opinion making connections that are false.
Lets look at the facts

Oil


USD weakening in same period

I don't know how the rest of the world is doing, but America is cutting down on oil usuage and the price is falling. That also is a fact.

The price of oil is determined by global demand and supply - that is the fact.
The US being part of the world and largest consumer has an effect on demand, but 75% of demand is elsewhere and growing.

Does the President have power to control interest rates? I don't think so. But if he does, please inform me of that.

He has the power to set the economic course and therefore the monetary environment.
The Fed sets interest rates in what it believes to be interests of the US in the environment it finds itself in, it's aims are 1. Avoid recession and 2.) Avoid Inflation - It does not operate in a vacuum.

Bush heavily increased levels of debt to fund spending and tax cuts which fuelled a credit boom generally.
The Fed was constrained to keep  interest rates low as the US was dependent on cheap credit. It  resulted in a weakening of the dollar as there was a glut of dollar debt in the markets,  the side effect of a weak dollar is increased commodity prices for US consumers - but it was the best they could do keep growth going. So that is 1) ticked
2.) Inflationary pressures  from cheap and easy money - the argument was that it was being kept in check by the rising of supply from a competitive China.

And it was a merry go round that worked for a time.

Until China's domestic demand caught up and negated the China anti-inflationary effect and  the inflationary rises in commodity prices could no longer be ignored.

Then the merry go round has seized up and spun off it's axis -
The level and quality of the debts started to look distinctly shitty and the financial fallout has been obvious.

Bush recently blamed the credit  binge on Wall street - he said they had got drunk and now had a hangover.

Wall street is to blame but Bush neglects to point out that he  was single biggest consumer and fueller of  the binge in the market.

This shit will take years to work through now, nobody really knows to what extent the damage will be.

Believe me - you may think Bush is innocent of all this now, but much like you changed your support for his Iraq adventures after a few years, you will end up cursing his  irresponsibility in a few years.

Well, theirs no doubt that the President probably can "influence" interest rates in some ways, I guess.

I don't think Bush is innocent of anything. He is in charge of this country, so to speak. It's his watch.

I just don't blame him 100% for any of the disasters that have occured durring his terms.

I think this country would have taken a shit with anyone in office at the time of Katrina. And if indeed we had bad intelligence about the Iraq nuclear weapons thing, I'm not so sure another President wouldn't have at least attacked Iraq in hopes of getting Hussein. Considering the trouble he's caused for years and years. And of course 9-11.

Bush has faced some major shit as President. Probably much more than any recent President has. He did some good, and he fucked up. I guess he's human.

But as President, I think all fault and praise starts and ends with the President. Just as it does with most business owners.

I just think it would be more appropriate to be a little fair when judging him. That doesn't mean he get's a slap on the back and two days of drinking, just means he gets a little consideration.

I see that the oil prices were climbing brfore Katrina. I stand corrected. But the gas prices at the pump soared after Katrina, made people take notice. After Katrina, there wasn't a few cents a day spike at the pumps....it went way up and never came down. I'm talking pump prices, not so much oil prices, though they go hand in hand I guess.

Kinda nice being corrected without being cussed for a change. ;D ;D

:)

I don't blame him for everything that has happened - shit happens.

I admit I have never had any respect for the guy since before he got elected.
Do you seriously believe he would have risen to power from obscurity without his connections.

For all his folksy down to earth  persona, he has never lived in or even been part of the real world.
He has been under the protection and promoted by powerful interests in the US that have links throughout the political/military/industrial/media establishment.

His  modus operandi  has been based on creating division while playing to the gallery - literally divide and rule but with ham acting.

That pattern of divisiveness has been used as a political tool in everything he has done since - careless, irresponsible and divisive.

Shit - in the last election somehow Kerry was made to look like the military shirker and Bush the selfless warrior.
Two guys the same age who went to the same school and it's the guy who actually fought in Vietnam and earned medals who gets shafted for his military record !!!

The fact that people bought that crap is how he got elected. The fact that he could rely on people buying bullshit is how he governed. Bush has been the biggest chancer and bullshitter to inhabit the Whitehouse in recent decades.


I don't dislike McCain, I think he would make a decent President, so in this election I don't really care who gets elected - I expect either of them to be competent - The biggest plus on this election is that  Bush is gone regardless of who wins.

I favour Obama only because he is young and the outsider - His lack of experience is outweighed by the lack of baggage that goes with "experience" - experience in politics is often a cage with debts to be repaid.

But McCain has been an outsider in many ways as well.

It is a shame they can't fight an election without cow towing to the evangelists like in the recent god squad "debate" - they should just agree to break from that crap,  it is a legacy of Bush politics and start expecting people to vote as individuals again.

That is perhaps too idealistic though :)

I hear they asked McCain if he wore briefs or boxers and he answered "Depends."

Hookbender — Aug 21, 2008Bush was more experienced than Obama.

Bush had never held national office.  Crack cheap in Alabama?